Author
Topic: Nikon 7100 has been anounced (Read 39020 times)

Update: this does sound off-topic, but I wrote it to respond to the conflict that was beginning about the "color palates" of Nikon vs. Canon, a conflict that is fundamentally flawed...

...For example, there was a photo of a bee and sunflower on here. The white balance on that was not quite right...On the original user's monitor they may have been perfect, but on my precisely calibrated screen they were considerably off....

While you may be correct, I have to add that you have also illustrated why trying to achieve perfect white balance in anything other than print is pretty much a fool's errand. Most images today will live only on a computer screen. They will never be printed.

The only way to achieve perfect color balance is to go around the world and personally adjust the monitors of every single person in the world. And, while doing that, you would also need to adjust their phones and tablets. (That's not to say that we shouldn't all take more care to try to get the color balance correct, or at least get it to match what we envision).

Seeking perfect color balance on a perfectly calibrated monitor is one strategy and works fine if you don't intend to ever share your images with anyone. I think a better strategy is to follow the model used by web designers and test your images on as many different devices and under as many different conditions as possible to try to achieve the most appealing "average" appearance.

I can't understand anyone who buys Canon products and then says they are "crap" etc. What kind of consumer are they if they buy stuff they don't like. Everybody makes a few mistakes, but for the most part, I like the stuff I buy. I wouldn't buy it if I didn't.

In general the votes that count the most are the ones we make with our money. On the other hand, although rarely, people might with full awareness buy something they don't like if they have some other reason to do so... best available, can't afford what they do like, needs to be compatible with another product, etc.

Finally, I don't understand all the Nikon vs. Canon hate stuff – both the self-haters who buy Canon gear and participate in a Canon forum and then constantly complain about Canon. Nor do I understand those who act like Nikon is the worst thing ever and get all upset when Nikon produces a good quality product at a good price.

The answer to this is that it's not really hate just Internet whining, a need to justify one's own choices, they are trolls who just want to stir it up for fun, etc.

The D7100 specs look great. However, despite their specs, Nikon also dominates in consumer dis-satisfaction. Check Amazon.com for all of the 1-star [worst] ratings that Nikon is getting from buyers of the D600 and D800. So far, about 17% of reviewers are giving them just 1 star for these cameras. By comparison, so far just 2% of reviewers are giving the 5DIII 1 star, and 0% of reviewers are giving the 6D 1 star. With all of the value Nikon is providing in their specs they should be leading in consumer satisfaction, but clearly they aren't. In fact, for those specific models, it's not even close.[/quote]

Besides that, better specs don't matter if they don't improve some feature that matters to whoever buys the camera. In most ways the Nikon D600 has better specs than the Canon 6D, but when I rented and compared them side-by-side (I was rather looking forward to owning a FF Nikon in conjunction with my 5DII) the results I got from the D600 weren't better than the results I got from the 6D (taking lens differences into account, they probably weren't worse, either) but I found the D600's controls awkward to use, didn't like its viewfinder, and it doesn't focus as well in low light. For some (most? who knows?) the D600 may well be a better camera, but it wasn't for me, so I bought an "inferior" 6D instead.

Respond to what? Sorry, but no, they really don't. To those who say, "Nikon is handing Canon their asses," or "Canon should be scared," understand that at the most fundamental level, camera sales are what matter. The finance and marketing divisons within a major corporation, especially a conservative one like Canon, are the voices that determine the ultimate output from the R&D side of the organization, in part because they control the input (i.e. funding) into that R&D.

Neuroanatomist,

I usually agree with the majority of your posts on here, but with this one I have to vehemently disagree. I have one word for you... "Microsoft." They sat on their laurels for years, why? Because according to you, "the ship [was] sailing along fine." That's exactly when competition (eg, Apple, Google, Facebook, Firefox, etc.) comes and bites you in the ass.

Yes, Canon may still be a profit machine, but their products aren't what they once were. The competition has noticed, the professional shooter has noticed, and better, more cost effective solutions, are starting to hit the market and make a legitimate fight for share.

If Canon doesn't start mounting a serious defense, and that right soon, they may find themselves wandering around lost like Steve Ballmer at an app-developer conference.

I can't understand anyone who buys Canon products and then says they are "crap" etc. What kind of consumer are they if they buy stuff they don't like. Everybody makes a few mistakes, but for the most part, I like the stuff I buy. I wouldn't buy it if I didn't.

Unfocused,

You make a valid point, but one that requires a little more nuance to explain in detail. You have to remember, the majority of pro shooters don't just have a 60D or a single 7D body. They have numerous bodies and an extensive collection of lenses and accessories. Switching systems is a massive undertaking, both from a time and energy standpoint, and a financial resources one as well. Fully switching brands must be a well thought out decision, and sometimes it simply isn't worth it - even when new product releases are inferior to the competition's.

But with that said, and as an owner of both the 5D3 and the D800, I can honestly say that I will not be making any additional Canon body purchases without some significant improvement in sensor performance or a very real indication from Canon that they care about the pro shooter AND innovations in digital photography. Simply cranking out new bodies every three years with a few tweaks just doesn't cut it anymore; Nikon has made this point as clear as crystal.

Looking at the bigger picture, the market is what it is. If Canon wants to rely on mid-level dSLR sales to hobbyist and part-time shooters to fill it's coffers, and build their reputation on that, that's just fine - I just probably won't be hanging around at that point. To think of it from the personal computer perspective... If Canon wants to turn themselves into the Dell of dSLR manufacturers, that's certainly their prerogative, I'd just rather be shooting with an Apple.

Neuro, you had me up until that "ship is sailing along fine..." stuff.

Not trying to single you out, because I know you know better and I know you aren't guilty of the sin I'm about to attack. But, I can never figure out why otherwise intelligent people think a multinational, multi-billion dollar, profitable company is stupid.

Far from it. My point is that Canon's current strategy is working. They are doing their R&D, developing new cameras with improved features, releasing them into the market, and those cameras are selling like gangbusters. I don't understand why otherwise intelligent people are clamoring for Canon to do something different, and be more like their competitor that isn't doing as well as they are in the market.

My point was not "the ship is sailing along fine," so Canon should be complacent. They clearly have a strategy (ship), and are executing on that strategy (sailing), and are successful at it (sailing fine).

Also, do note that I did suggest that behavior might be short sighted. I'm well aware of the parallels to Microsoft, another conservative company. Just because it happened once, doesn't mean it will happen again; by the same token, just because it happened to another company doesn't mean Canon will learn from that lesson. Usually, changes like this don't happen overnight. Obviously, Microsoft did not respond to those changes appropriately for their business. It remains to be seen how Canon will respond to a declining marketshare, but of course, first that marketshare has to actually decline.

We heard all of these arguments about the D800, and the 5D Mark III is apparently outselling it by a wide margin. Now the D7100 is the best thing since sliced bread, and while is does seem like a well-spec'd camera, I suggest we wait and see how well it sells, compared to a camera Canon may or may not release, before we declare victory for Nikon and claim Canon 'had their ass handed to them'.

I'm not sure we disagree. I have no problem with anyone buying any particular brand of any product. And, I certainly understand the need for someone who is earning a living in any profession to buy the tools that may give them an edge.

In fact, I think it is probably those of us who don't do this for a living that are more trapped than those who do earn a living at it, as we don't have any means of recovering our investment.

My point was never that no one should ever change brands or select a product that better fits their needs. My complaint is about those who cannot see past their own narrow obsessions and react hysterically on the internet to each new product introduction by competitors as though it's somehow going to drive Canon into bankruptcy.

As I said, I am thrilled by Nikon's efforts to aggressively compete on both price and features. As consumers, whether professional or amateur, we can only benefit.

Neuro, you had me up until that "ship is sailing along fine..." stuff.

Not trying to single you out, because I know you know better and I know you aren't guilty of the sin I'm about to attack. But, I can never figure out why otherwise intelligent people think a multinational, multi-billion dollar, profitable company is stupid.

Far from it. My point is that Canon's current strategy is working. They are doing their R&D, developing new cameras with improved features, releasing them into the market, and those cameras are selling like gangbusters. I don't understand why otherwise intelligent people are clamoring for Canon to do something different, and be more like their competitor that isn't doing as well as they are in the market...

...We heard all of these arguments about the D800, and the 5D Mark III is apparently outselling it by a wide margin. Now the D7100 is the best thing since sliced bread, and while is does seem like a well-spec'd camera, I suggest we wait and see how well it sells, compared to a camera Canon may or may not release, before we declare victory for Nikon and claim Canon 'had their ass handed to them'.

Oh dear. We are going to have to agree to agree.

Seriously, I absolutely do agree with the points you have made. I thought I detected that you were starting to buy into the argument that Canon has fallen behind and I was trying to nip that in the bud.

I'm not a blindly loyal fan of Canon, but I have great respect for their ability to manage the company and return profits in a challenging environment. I also note that in the polls that count (buyers) Canon does extremely well and it seems that over the long run, their recent introductions (5DIII and 6D) are actually becoming more popular while their competitors' products are slipping.

At one point I worked for a major telecommunications carrier and the CEO used to say something to the effect that he would take an average plan that is well-executed over an excellent plan this is poorly executed any day of the week. Regardless of what anyone thinks about Canon, the fact is, they consistently know how to get the ball across the goal and do it more frequently and more consistently than their competitors.

....Switching systems is a massive undertaking, both from a time and energy standpoint, and a financial resources one as well. Fully switching brands must be a well thought out decision, and sometimes it simply isn't worth it - even when new product releases are inferior to the competition's.

sure -- and the sales figures (that show the clear Canon advantage) may be in fact due to the high installed based. the implication is that no one (with a lick of sense) really compares body-to-body they compare system-to-system. So Canon sells more bodies becasue their strategy is working.

Quote

...I can honestly say that I will not be making any additional Canon body purchases without some significant improvement in sensor performance

This is a hot topic, to be sure. Canon's strategy of building the installed base and locking people in with a great lineup of lenses is aparently working. Thing is, we are not yet at the point where the Nikon shooters are producing better photos, in spite of their theoretical advantages and tables full of numbers that look better. My observation is just that Canon may be content to yield the industry leadership position to Sony in sensor design as long as they can avoid that point where Nikons are producing better photos. If/when that point in time will come is up for amusing debate, to be sure.

Until Nikon bodies and lenses produce better, more marketable, more compelling photos that clients favor over the Canon photos, and until the Canon wielding pros start to experience the economics of that, I don't think we have any real case that Canon is shirking their duties. And I do think it is about the economics of marketing photos, not about the gearheads that compare numbers.

Zlatko

Simply cranking out new bodies every three years with a few tweaks just doesn't cut it anymore; Nikon has made this point as clear as crystal.

The 5D3 and 1DX have more than "a few tweaks" and certainly don't feel "cranked out". Each has numerous refinements, many of which are directly responsive to professionals' requests. Canon sensors already do a great job for many photographers. While more dynamic range will be welcome, there is more to a sensor than dynamic range. And there is more to a camera system than a sensor.

....Switching systems is a massive undertaking, both from a time and energy standpoint, and a financial resources one as well. Fully switching brands must be a well thought out decision, and sometimes it simply isn't worth it - even when new product releases are inferior to the competition's.

sure -- and the sales figures (that show the clear Canon advantage) may be in fact due to the high installed based. the implication is that no one (with a lick of sense) really compares body-to-body they compare system-to-system. So Canon sells more bodies becasue their strategy is working.

I don't know that their current strategy is working but at a key point (lets say when the 20D/5D/5DII were introduced), they were able to capture a lot of photographers that were coming into digital photography or that were upgrading from point-and-shoot. Being on top of the market early let them establish a good installed base that will stick with the same vendor as time goes by because people can just buy a new body.

....Switching systems is a massive undertaking, both from a time and energy standpoint, and a financial resources one as well. Fully switching brands must be a well thought out decision, and sometimes it simply isn't worth it - even when new product releases are inferior to the competition's.

sure -- and the sales figures (that show the clear Canon advantage) may be in fact due to the high installed based. the implication is that no one (with a lick of sense) really compares body-to-body they compare system-to-system. So Canon sells more bodies becasue their strategy is working.

I don't know that their current strategy is working but at a key point (lets say when the 20D/5D/5DII were introduced), they were able to capture a lot of photographers that were coming into digital photography or that were upgrading from point-and-shoot. Being on top of the market early let them establish a good installed base that will stick with the same vendor as time goes by because people can just buy a new body.

agreed. Only recently have we seen Sony overtake the Canon sensor technology -- but the point is that this advantage has not (yet) resulted in better or more marketable photos.

on EDIT: I would even add: Not even "easier to get better or more marketable photos with Nikon"!

In fact, because of Canon's market share and installed base they could quite easily remain one step behind the industry state-of-the-art in sensor technology and STILL maintain their position -- until and unless that gap truly and actually results in better photos, not just better specs, coming from the competition.